₦airaland Forum

fergie001:
Why are you reading (5) and (6) without reading (1)?
When counting numbers, you start from 1, 2, 3 and not 5. That's how the Constitution and Electoral Act are read. In Conjunction....
Section 29(1) is a carry over from 31(1) from the old Electoral Act.

The SC married both the old 31(1), 31(5) & 31(6) in PDP v Degi. Has PDP submitted their Dep-Gov Guber Candidate? Anybody can still drop now, everyone including the Candidates themselves can still be substituted. Section 29(1) must take place before 2, 3 and others will follow.

Read PDP v Degi, APC v Obaseki, Saleh v Abah.
If for example, it is less than 180 days to the election, then PDP will not participate. The Primary wasn't nullified as you rightly said but the winner's vote is voided, destroyed, empty.

There is no final list for now....INEC reiterated that last week. The Judge was right in his Judgement. Will you say APC who violated their Act like in Akpabio, Lawan, Machina or PDP like in Edo also don't have Candidiates because INEC didn't list them?

Read section 33...no substitution except by withdrawal or death

garfield1:
It will.section 33 is very clear.no party can substitute a candidate except by death or withdrawal. No provision for disq...cc ojuntana

Ok

AAA593:
Ok

I dont know what fergie001 is trying to do.disq is meant go punish and not reward

garfield1:
Saleh vs Abba is obsolete and overtaken by new events partly.during that period,a first runner up in a parties primary inherits the victory but from the 2019,election cycle this stopped.any party that fields an ineligible candidate is disq...

Look at the intendment of the lawmakers about substitution.it is meant for natural circumstances like death,serious ailment and withdrawal which has nothing to do with breaking the law....the lawmakers never intended disq to be a ground for substitution.

During pre election and election,candidates are tied to parties.whatever affects one affects the other.

This is not true. Section 29 was so framed because of Zamfara and Bayelsa States. The lawmakers wanted a situation where such doesn't happen, the reason they pushed it 180 days so that Courts can decide cases quickly rather than someone wins, then the Court removes the person.

Are you aware that a Court ruled against INEC when the SDP and Akpoti wanted to substitute her Dep-Gov Candidate who was clearly unqualified? Appeal Court said you can't bar anyone until you publish the final list.

You can substitute based on withdrawal, as much times as you want provided you don't breach the 60 days, now 180 days rule. In APC v Obaseki in 2020.....Obaseki filed his documents and apc did nothing and waited till INEC published the final list before they went to Court where there was no chance.

You reference Degi, did he participate in any election?
He was nominated like Masari, like Okowa and his substitution window was closed whether by withdrawal or anything. By virtue of Section 29(1), Justice Taiwo I believe was in order.

How can the Court disqualify a Party, who carried out a valid Primary and still have time about a month or two to submit their final lists to INEC? That will have been frivolous.

How has Saleh v Abah changed?

Let me ask you: If a Court pronounces today that Atiku or Tinubu be disqualified for Certificate issues.
Who benefits...Your answer will decide my reply.
Who will be APC or PDP Candidates for the election, I am waiting.

This is serious

There should be accelerated hearing so this matter can be resolved once and for all.

fergie001:
This is not true. Section 29 was so framed because of Zamfara and Bayelsa States. The lawmakers wanted a situation where such doesn't happen, the reason they pushed it 180 days so that Courts can decide cases quickly rather than someone wins, then the Court removes the person.

Are you aware that a Court ruled against INEC when the SDP and Akpoti wanted to substitute her Dep-Gov Candidate who was clearly unqualified? Appeal Court said you can't bar anyone until you publish the final list.

You can substitute based on withdrawal, as much times as you want provided you don't breach the 60 days, now 180 days rule. In APC v Obaseki in 2020.....Obaseki filed his documents and apc did nothing and waited till INEC published the final list before they went to Court where there was no chance.

You reference Degi, did he participate in any election?
He was nominated like Masari, like Okowa and his substitution window was closed whether by withdrawal or anything. By virtue of Section 29(1), Justice Taiwo I believe was in order.

How can the Court disqualify a Party, who carried out a valid Primary and still have time about a month or two to submit their final lists to INEC? That will have been frivolous.

How has Saleh v Abah changed?

Let me ask you: If a Court pronounces today that Atiku or Tinubu be disqualified for Certificate issues.
Who benefits...Your answer will decide my reply.
Who will be APC or PDP Candidates for the election, I am waiting.

No need for this.section 33 has settled it

vicdom:
That's my position too. How can Edevbie inherit the mandate?? I think PDP is barred entirely.

says who? This is a pre election matter. Either the person that came second succeds him or PDP Conduct a fresh primary. Peace be unto you.

garfield1:
Read section 33...no substitution except by withdrawal or death

That is correct.

It's not new....It was in the old one, S33 as well.

garfield1:
No need for this.section 33 has settled it

You didn't answer the bolded.

fergie001:
You didn't answer the bolded.

The question is now a formality

garfield1:
I dont know what is trying to do.disq is meant go punish and not reward

Yes, punish the Candidiate.

garfield1:
The question is now a formality

Freudian slip?
Because it stands on all fours with this case and you know your answering it will give you away.

fergie001:
That is correct.

It's not new....It was in the old one, S33 as well.

You see,intendment matters.even before seeing section 33,I deduced that substitution must be based on lawful and law abiding reasons.they were very explicit...

But pdp can still get respite.have they already submitted sheriff's name? Two,since section 33 wasn't seen by taiwo and wasn't part of the appellant prayers,the apex court might miss it too except apc sues that's if they have locus

fergie001:
Yes, punish the Candidiate.

No,we have been through this in jegede vs aketi and pdp vs umahi.the fate of a candidate and his party are intertwined until they are sworn in...they are Siamese twins for now

Again why the party will be punished is that before primaries,parties have enough time to assess and screen the candidates and even disq them.they are like a semi court at that period

This shows the incompetence of the ruling class in all level… How can a whole governor who served two tenure not to do a secret background check on the academic qualifications and in fact, all the qualifications criteria of his chosen successor? And even if where there likely some anomaly, his retinue of legal advises will advise accordingly to avoid a situation like this? This shows the nonchalant attitudes of our leaders which has reflected on the state of country currently.. That’s why the country continues to move backwards.

garfield1:
You see,intendment matters.even before seeing section 33,I deduced that substitution must be based on lawful and law abiding reasons.they were very explicit...

But pdp can still get respite.have they already submitted sheriff's name? Two,since section 33 wasn't seen by taiwo and wasn't part of the appellant prayers,the apex court might miss it too except apc sues that's if they have locus

Now you have come to where I was going

There are two sections that speak about disqualifying factors in the Electoral Act. Sections 31 and 87 of the old Electoral Act. While Section 31 is inter-Party, Section 87 is intra-Party. Section 31 speaks wrt to falsification and certification issues. Anybody can sue: APC v Obaseki, Saleh v Abah, PDP v Degi were premised.

Section 87 is for only aspirants that participated in the Primary who feel someone didn't win and all that..strictly intra-party. Marafa v APC

However, in this new Electoral Act, Sections 29 and 84 are now intra-party because they speak only of Aspirants in that political party that participated in the Primaries - See Section 29(5).. How can APC now have locus? Except the APC say the primaries were not valid wrt 84, they can seize S284 and go against INEC and not even against PDP.

The PDP didn't raise 33 and won't raise it and nobody will speak about it since it didn't come up at this Court.

If you say the Party should be disqualified and the person who comes second should be declared winner: ......and then declare the candidate with the second highest number of valid votes
Who should the Court declare winner now?
Who came second?
Who is the person with the highest number of valid votes?

That should tell you that it is cannot benefit any other Party.

fergie001:
All prayers were granted excepting the bolded.

Addme SamOchuko seunmsg garfield1 vicdom kyase AAA593
Delta PDP have said they will appeal....but if I follow the Diri v Degi issue, he will need to fast and pray very fervently.

My oh my..... It's over for PDP

Addme:
My oh my..... It's over for PDP

Read well again.
The third prayer.....

fergie001:
Now you have come to where I was going

There are two sections that speak about disqualifying factors in the Electoral Act. Sections 31 and 87 of the old Electoral Act. While Section 31 is inter-Party, Section 87 is intra-Party. Section 31 speaks wrt to falsification and certification issues. Anybody can sue: APC v Obaseki, Saleh v Abah, PDP v Degi were premised.

Section 87 is for only aspirants that participated in the Primary who feel someone didn't win and all that..strictly intra-party. Marafa v APC

However, in this new Electoral Act, Sections 29 and 84 are now intra-party because they speak only of Aspirants in that political party that participated in the Primaries - See Section 29(5).. How can APC now have locus? Except the APC say the primaries were not valid wrt 84, they can seize S284 and go against INEC and not even against PDP.

The PDP didn't raise 33 and won't raise it and nobody will speak about it since it didn't come up at this Court.

If you say the Party should be disqualified and the person who comes second should be declared winner: ......and then declare the candidate with the second highest number of valid votes
Who should the Court declare winner now?
Who came second?
Who is the person with the highest number of valid votes?

That should tell you that it is strictly intra-party.

I can't find section 284 but this is similar to jegede vs aketi.he will not touch on the pdp primary but for the court to determine pdp's disq qualification alongside section 29 and 33 and pray the court to exclude pdp...

Since pdp won't raise it,the more reason for apc to join.me and you know this supreme court,they do not judge things narrowly.it will be hard for them to miss it

garfield1:
No,we have been through this in jegede vs aketi and pdp vs umahi.the fate of a candidate and his party are intertwined until they are sworn in...they are Siamese twins for now

Again why the party will be punished is that before primaries,parties have enough time to assess and screen the candidates and even disq them.they are like a semi court at that period

I support their punishment but the lawmakers have to spell it out.

Again, PDP v Umahi cannot stand.
Jegede v Aketi is post-election and not pre-election.

garfield1:
I can't find section 284 but this is similar to jegede vs aketi.he will not touch on the pdp primary but for the court to determine pdp's disq qualification alongside section 29 and 33 and pray the court to exclude pdp

Jegede only went that way because it was a Constitutional issue and the tribunal rightly didn't touch, it was the Higher Courts that dealt with it.

Yes, APC can go to the FHC to seek interpretation. They need not wait because of the statute-barred wahala.

garfield1:
I can't find section 284 but this is similar to jegede vs aketi.he will not touch on the pdp primary but for the court to determine pdp's disq qualification alongside section 29 and 33 and pray the court to exclude pdp...

Since pdp won't raise it,the more reason for apc to join.me and you know this supreme court,they do not judge things narrowly.it will be hard for them to miss it

It's S285 of the 1999 CFRN, my mistake.
Let them test it....Benue is testing theirs too.

fergie001:
It's S285 of the 1999 CFRN, my mistake.
Let them test it....Benue is testing theirs too.

Anything bordering on party primaries or party affairs while suing inec is dead on arrival except it borders on inec intern affairs like updating of register,deregistration,exclusion etc

fergie001:
Jegede only went that way because it was a Constitutional issue and the tribunal rightly didn't touch, it was the Higher Courts that dealt with it.

Yes, APC can go to the FHC to seek interpretation. They need not wait because of the statute-barred wahala.

With this,umo eno is gone

fergie001:
I support their punishment but the lawmakers have to spell it out.

Again, PDP v Umahi cannot stand.
Jegede v Aketi is post-election and not pre-election.

The lawmakers are human not machines.they cannot touch everything that is why we have judicial legislation, intendment,community and holistic reading to fill in gaps

garfield1:
Anything bordering on party primaries or party affairs while suing inec is dead on arrival except it borders on inec intern affairs like updating of register,deregistration,exclusion etc

That will be my first inkling but let them test it.

garfield1:
The lawmakers are human not machines.they cannot touch everything that is why we have judicial legislation, intendment,community and holistic reading to fill in gaps

Those legislations must be backed by law.

They touched that provision because of Lyon/Degi and couldn't do anything different. The ones that will hit them directly, they will waive like they did Direct Primaries and Consensus etc.

We will get better with time anyways.

fergie001:
That will be my first inkling but let them test it.

A second look at this sheriff case looks confusing.it seems his surname is constant like that of frank in okigwe.did he have a deed poll? Did any of the institutions he graduated from regularize the name change? Play play,omo agege will be governor

garfield1:
With this,umo eno is gone

I haven't seen the document but something is amiss because there is some sort of loud silence in AKS PDP.

garfield1:
A second look at this sheriff case looks confusing.it seems his surname is constant like that of frank in okigwe.did he have a deed poll? Did any of the institutions he graduated from regularize the name change?

I don't know any because most of them know they committed a lot of forgery so hide it from the public to avoid scrutiny.

fergie001:
I don't know any because most of them know they committed a lot of forgery so hide it from the public to avoid scrutiny.

No.get the full copy of the court judgment for us to peruse it